Quote:
Originally posted by Aerkuld
Jim's right, I think, comparing F1 to a chess match.
I think the difference is that a NASCAR race is effectively a stand-alone event, in that you can watch one race and 'get it'. Because the event in itself seems to have little effect on the rest of the season.
F1, on the otherhand, is more of a drawn out battle. One event often has a significant effect in the championship, but in order to see this you have to be following the season. When you do that you start to see the 'off-track' race to improve and develop the cars, engines, tires etc. as the season progresses. Follow this and you can see who is off the pace, who is catching up or dropping back. To me that makes it interesting.
|
I'll be the first to admit, my attention span is barely long enough to get through the whole race, let along keep up with the off-track drama during the week.
That and it's on at odd times (so I can't ever remember to get up and watch. I guess F1 is not for the casual viewer. Doesn't Ferrari win like 90% of the races?
Regarding people saying NASCAR is a spec series...so what? Spec is fun, you see who can really drive once you take out the variable of who can spend the most money. Space wheelbarrows would be more fun to watch than a guaranteed blowout.
I will agree with you all though, manipulating it just for the "show" of it is wrong. If a ball game sucks, well, it just sucked. Can't manipulate that. It is a fascinating business, but like every business, it has it's haters.